Jump to content

Talk:Gun culture in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Added worldwide tags

This article is hopelessly America-centric, acting as if the situation in the US is the standard and other countries are deviations from this.--Nydas 08:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the second understatement of the past three millennia. Except I would disagree that it's 'America-centric'. Like so many other things the US have appropriated the entire 'Americas' it would seem. Guatemalans are 'Americans'; so are Brazilians, people from the Argentines, Nicaraguans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, Canadians, and more, and more and more. I think it's time to get the US to describe their citizens as something other than 'Americans' as if they own every country and people in the 'Americas'.
Getting Americans to stop calling themselves "Americans" is proably just a teeny-tiny bit beyond the scope of the wiki project. Besides, what would you suggest? United'ians? State'ians Of'ians? Come one. Let stay on topic (see WP:SOAP)64.102.254.33 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In one sense yes, it could be seen as US driven, however in Australia we use the term Gun Culture to describe a pardigm of usually American popular culture that embraces guns or has an inordinate usage of gun imagery or props, which tend to romanticise or numb the audience into a positive view or an acceptance of guns. We refer to such things as Western, Cop, and War movies, television shows, and other pop culture. petedavo 12:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

'Paradigm' has two 'a's. Otherwise you're spot on matey. Glad someone out there is still sane about the issue. Good on ya!

Rural?

Gun Culture members are most often from rural areas? Is there any actual source to back this up, and even if there is, is it worth mentioning? Mwv2 16:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The sourcing for this is the Robert Spitzer book. SaltyBoatr 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Media shaped perception

We need to flesh-out the sources re the modern interpretation of old west history. The two main sources in the article now, Spitzer and Luna, conflict on this point. I don't think it belongs in the photo caption at all. Arthurrh 21:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are Spitzer and Luna are even in conflict? They both agree that firearms were important on the nineteenth-century frontier, but Spitzer clarifies that actual violence in populated places on the frontier has been exaggerated by books and movies. - Hoplon 23:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Luna mentions those who minimize the gun influence in the historical west as "historical revisionists". Arthurrh 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight on the nut

Does anyone else think we're giving undue weight to the gun nut refs? There are 9 sources for the pejorative use, 4 from the same publication, 2 from the same author, which essentially proves that the particular publication uses the term frequently, but not much else. Shouldn't we pare it down to a couple of representative examples? Arthurrh 00:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You can if you want. That was just the result of a little war I went through for the term's existence on Wikipedia. It originally had it's own article but was deleted by other editors, then I put it here and it was also deleted a couple times, and in the end it manage to stick around. --BillyTFried 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I trimmed it down a bit. Hopefully no one will think it should go just because there's fewer refs. Have you thought about putting it in wikitionary? It might be a better fit. Arthurrh 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

gun myths in America

errrrmm I'm not sure I entirely agree with the claims about gun culture being inherent to America. There's certainly conflicting evidence on the matter, but there has been research to show that guns were expensive and had to be imported from Europe for years since the U.S. had no domestic manufacturing (although the government tried very hard to subsidise private gun mftr, smiths and their apprentices certainly couldn't make enough weapons to arm an entire country). Although, even if this is untrue and a lot of average households did have guns, the question still remains about the frequency of their use and their condition — if people didn't actually use their guns or maintain them it hardly counts towards gun culture, does it? I'm really skeptical about things like boys shooting/receiving guns as a rite of passage... especially when you consider how ineffective and untrained/poorly trained militias actually were and the debates over having a citizen militia vs a proper state army.

Just a suggestion! I don't think it should be rewritten entirely but I think it might be a good idea to present the fact that there's conflicting evidence about gun culture so that at least readers can have a basis for further research into either argument.

Aside from that, we definitely need a bit more "world view" to this article!

Michael Bellesiles' debunked work aside (see his wiki entry), it's pretty well agreed that gun ownership and use in the early American colonies and United States was fairly high -- the law in every colony required gun ownership by landowners, after all, and Jefferson advised it over football. Pre-1800s firearms weren't particularly accurate or reliable, but they were also very, very simple : many parts of ordinary farming equipment was of comparable difficulty to form, and the colonies had few issues obtaining either. There were some folk poorly trained in the use of firearms, but such things were rare enough that Washington himself felt it worthy to point out the few cases of poor skill and preparation.
For more information, there are lots of viable sources, but Cramer's debunking of Bellesiles' work is a pretty good place to start. 69.61.196.180 23:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm struggling with the world-view part. Does anyone have good sources for gun culture in countries outside the USA? Arthurrh 17:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Present-day gun culture

The "Present-day gun culture" section claims to be based on Erik Luna's work, but is very misrepresentative of what he says. I'm probably going to take a crack at re-working it in the near future, unless someone else gets there first. If you think what's there is accurate, now is a good time to start helping rework this. Arthurrh 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent a good while going over Erik Luna's source article for the assertions made in this section. I can't find these assertions in this article although it goes into good detail elaborating US anti-gun cultural opinion. I tagged the section as containing possible unpublished synthesis. See WP:SYN. I deleted one WP:POV statement but left the others as a later cleanup task since they were fairly on topic and neutral.Trilobitealive (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)(moved this comment to avoid confusion even though Arthurrh's comment is nearly a year old))Trilobitealive (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Returned and reworked the deleted statement and will return another day to look at Luna's essay and the section in question. The non-US information in this section is even more difficult to verify. I may just delete all those statements with the {{Fact}} tags unless somebody can verify them.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Term is spreading

Gun Culture, as a term, is starting to permiate pro-firearms forums and blogs.

As it has a life now beyond Mr. Ross's work, I suggest that having this seperate entry ( with its referal to Ross ) is appropriate.

'Separate' has two 'a's and only two 'e's. As for a separate entry, kbarrett: I think not. The less attention we draw to romanticising this twisted culture the better.

Regards, kbarrett.

PS. 'Permeate' has no 'i's. Use a spell checker and throw your peacemaker in the river.

^^^Attacking misspellings is the intellectual crutch of the mentally crippled; the ignorant who have no real argument in a debate. But as long as we're going that route...romanticizing is spelled with a "z"

Take it easy on him ... using an "s" there is correct for English as written in Britain ... which also explains his POV, as well as the spelling 'lames. -kbarrett —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.65.4 (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have friends in the UK that are gun owners and arent in a state of hyper paranoia over gun issues. As a matter of fact, many countries have fairly relaxed gun laws and dont have the hysteria that we have in the US, nor the ridiculous polarization. The US is too extreme and as a culture we are FAR to quick to label, categorize and then harshly (and hypocritically) judge it. And both sides are always so smug and self righteous in their adherence to the notion that the ONLY valid POV is theirs. The problem isnt guns, its the basic structure of the US. Everything must only be at the extremes and there is zero tolerance and typically outright hatred for the other persons beliefs - this is rampant on the left AND the right and colors every wiki article that isnt heavily policed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.205 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Scope?

Is this article intended to be only about Ross's idea of "gun culture"? I wonder if it would be appropriate to merge it with John Ross (author) in that case. If it's intended to be wider in scope than Ross's work, it may be difficult to keep out the original research. Friday (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope. I plan on adding (and finishing up citations of) other's ideas, but needed to take a break and couldn't figure out the right tag for "I'm still working on this" Dave polaschek 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
No worries. Anyone who comes across this article and wonders about it can find the discussion here on the talk page. I've got this on my watchlist and I'm happy to help out however I can. Friday (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
To date it remains primarly Ross's Gun Culture. Still needs a lot of work. Arthurrh 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Until I reviewed the history of the article, I had no idea who "Ross" was. His name is no longer in the article, and it is difficult to identify any content that would be attributed to him. The article as of this moment is roughly 1200 words long. Broken down, those words are spent as follows:
  • Lede: 60 word summary (excluding the part about the UK and Australia).
  • International: 250 words about "gun culture" outside the US, split between the lede and the "present day" subsection.
  • Gun Nut: 140 words on this phrase.
  • Richard Hofstadter: 60 words mentioning the Hofstadter article.
  • Spitzer: 410 words are a near plagiarism of Spitzer.
  • Luna: 295 words are a summary of Luna.
So, roughly 80% of the article that deals with the United States is from either Hofstadter, Spitzer, or Luna; roughly 15% deals with "gun nut". That only leaves around 5% of the coverage of the United States that could be attributed to Ross (or anybody else). I'm curious, Arthurrh, where you see the remaining Ross influence.- Hoplon 15:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The concept itself as outlined in the lead is all Ross. Others define it quite differently. Everything else in the article is working from that thesis. Arthurrh 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, I think I understand your position. A problem I see is that there is not a single definition of "gun culture", either internationally or within the United States.
  • "While there is no clear definition of or consensus on the meaning of this term, it continues to be used both in literature and practice to describe attitudes and behaviours toward weapons." - [1]
  • "In scholarly literature, the expression "gun culture" is frequently used but in most cases remains entirely undefined." - [2]
  • "The term ‘gun culture’ is vague, ill-defined, and currently denotes many things..." - [3]
I suspect forking this article (or clearly dividing it) into the meaning of "Gun Culture" inside vs outside the United States may be a good step, but I wonder what others here think? - Hoplon 18:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Forking may be the the correct idea, although it leaves a tiny stub for "outside the USA". I think we need to have one overall definition for the lead, with maybe info about the US definition, then the use separated by countries. Luna for example if quoted accurately was very specific to the US, referencing political party association, demographics, etc. Arthurrh 19:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The article, as usual, is ridiculously long winded and is a platform for ideologues to bury POV. "Gun Culture" is a MINOR concept that does NOT need MASSIVE explanation. "Phrase coined by (whomever) as a label for what (whomever) felt was a cultural trend. This trend as defined by (whomever) includes the following characteristics. These folks agree (references), these folks have a slightly different view (references) these folks disagree with the concept (references). Done. Probably half the size tops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.41.205 (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Evangelicals

One group that seems especially attached to the gun culture seems to be the Evangelicals. A possible explanation for this is that the constitutional right to bear arms was originally a special cultural privilege granted to Protestants by the English Crown, which was fearful of a possible invasion from Catholic countries such as France, Spain and the Southern Netherlands. ADM (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Gun culture in islamic countries

The article needs a section about the dominant gun culture in islamic countries. I've been to several islamic countries, and you can see guns everywhere. Whenever there is something to protest or celebrate, be it a rally or a wedding, people take their pistols and AK-47s and shoot into the air (or into the ceiling !). It's really crazy ! -- Alexey Topol (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The first section is not neutral

Added Template:POV-section above first section of the article, for overall tone and particularly because the following sentence is factually unfounded and intrinsically unverifiable (in particular, the term "law-abiding citizen" is inherently vague and unverifiable):

By contrast, the term is used differently in the UK and Australia, where it refers to a growing use and ownership of guns by criminals; which has been on a steep rise since the banning of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.


Would the term non-criminals, citizens, or general public be preferable?

I agree, it needs a source. If a source is found I can't imagine that there would be a more neutral wording for the same idea.

The the sentence currently reads "By contrast, the term is used differently in the UK and Australia, where it refers to a growing use and ownership of guns by criminals."

I think it still needs a source, but the new wording seems more neutral and factual. 74.215.6.247 (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

UK/Aus usage

The usage I (British) am most familiar with, that of "gun culture" being a wholly negative term associated with inner-city gang violence and the like, is skimmed over in one sentence in the lead. This is unsatisfactory to say the least: it should either be the subject of a proper section here, or of a separate article called something like Criminal gun culture. 86.143.48.55 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I support and encourage you to work to globalize this article. If a separate article is needed, I think Gun Culture (United States) would make more sense, in that Wikipedia articles are to be oriented towards a global perspective. By the way, I think that the US also has a concept of an inner city gang gun culture, in any case a good source on the US versus British gun culture(s) might be chapter 4 of the Peter Squires book _Gun Culture Or Gun Control?: Firearms, Violence and Society_ [4]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That sentence must have been quite old. I've looked up some statistics, the german article on firearms abuse has some good summaries on the world-wide situation while Firearms_certificate#Firearms_crime shows the UK situation. Homicide with firearms is rare (9% of all homicides), and I don't think there's a rise is criminal ownership and abuse beyond a normal fluctuation. So, I deleted this sentence from the first paragraph and also add references to the 1987 and 1995 massacres that had much influence on the UK firearms laws. -- TomK32 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Have restored the sentence and added two cites. I agree that we should work to globalize this article. Yaf (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the section regarding the minimum age requirement for the application of a Fire arms certificate in the UK from 17 to 18, as I believe that due to recent changes in British law this is now the case. I believe that after the introduction of the violent crime reduction act 2006, that firearms were classed alongside air weapons in terms of age required to own one, with the obvious exception of the FAC requirement, in that one had to be 18 to apply for a firearms certificate, or to purchase an air weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.145.154 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Understatement of the Past Three Millennia

'The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.'

Wow. That's really something. And yes, we need to take in the worldwide view here, cite how this culture is killing people, and show the connection between the aggressively hostile attitude towards sexuality, bible belt fanatics, and violence in US culture.

POV and OR have no place in wiki. Dman727 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
yep, thats definitely what the article needs... a calm and objective voice of reason like this! LOL! I think FAR more people are killed as the result of people claiming they "know whats good for everyone" than from law abiding gun owners. Typically comments like the above lead to enthusiastic cheering for a totalitarian dictator who, of course, strips down the populace to its weakest state and then begins to accumulate wealth and power while critics start to "vanish".
What kills the most people in the US is the fact that our culture tends to prefer hating each other, making insanely exaggerated statements, and then lashing out with violent judgment (kind of like you're doing) rather than finding ways to get along. Have you never watched "Bowling for Columbine"? Seems it would be right up your alley (yuk yuk) Why does Canada have just as many (if not more) guns per capita and yet nearly no crime? Fascinating. Truly amazing that you blame guns for the violence in US culture when it is BRUTALLY obvious that the INVERSE is true. That, in many cases, its the VIOLENT CULTURE that leads to the proliferation of weapons. If you had your little bag of fairy dust and made all the bad guns go away, you'd be just at risk tomorrow from a guy who would beat your head in with a bat or stab you. There are TONS of murders by stabbing in the US. Maybe next we ban knives and blame them for "all the violence". After that we can do hammers and crow bars and bats. Then we can ban the movies and games and TV shows. Last maybe we can start to ban the people. One things for sure... As long as we have two camps of extremist hung up on childishly simplistic talking points spoon fed to them by pundits (left and right), NOTHING will change. Which is EXACTLY what the power structure wants :) A nice complacent populace worried more about infighting over social issues than about whose hand is in the cookie jar.


This article, as already noted, is severely biased.

It would be put to better use as an example of discrimination, political propaganda or some other area in wiki about how language is used to control. Possibly it should only be a definition in the wiki-dictionary avoiding the hazards of the bias.

The second talk entry here underscores why the bias and imbalance in this article needs to be dealt with. A look at previous versions show the agenda of the original author. The wiki process has not yet yielded an accurate article.

One entry notes that the term is associated with criminal activity in other countries, this should give some insight as to why the anti-gun movement in the U.S. has embraced it so fully. This term is not really part of gun debate in this country other than to be used as a tool of divisiveness. It appears to be in use in other countries for the same reason.

The term gun culture, in the U.S. is used almost exclusively as a pejorative term to describe the group of people who advocate for and exercise their second amendment rights. Previous to the current usage it was mostly an academic term, neutral, as show by the supplied references.

Its current meaning has been manipulated by one side of a ferocious political battle and is no longer neutral. The attempt to qualify this term any other way, because it is creeping into the lexicon, is disingenuous.

Both sides of most political battles,at least in the U.S., use similarly manipulated bigotries in their rhetoric . I am certain the U.S. is not the only place that suffers this way. WE need to be diligent and not allow that sort of thing to go unnoted.

As I said earlier, this entry, along with gun nut belongs in discrimination or some other area that describes how language is used to control.

Gun owners are taking possession of the terms like "gun culture" and "gun nut" in the same way faggot and queer were appropriated by gays. Unless you have been on the receiving end of this sort of discrimination it is hard to grasp.

Gun culture, like the term lifestyle, is used do differentiate what those people do from us normal people. The fact that those who are unaware continue to use the terms, does not change the nature of the discrimination.

The evolution of the term needs to be traced in a way that results in an understanding that a descriptive term created by academics is now being used for discriminatory purposes.

I would value some input on how to accomplish a properly balanced perspective on this. Trace its roots and accurately identify it for the political and social divisiveness that it now represents.

I am new here and it seems like a very daunting task. Economic Refugee (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC) I believe I should have put my last comment in the bias section, as I said I am new and getting up to speed. Economic Refugee (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Bias

There is a clear attempt here to change this article to promote a Pro-gun stance POV. The term "gun-nut" is valid as it is a term genuinely used by many commentators while discussing the gun culture. POV has no place on Wikipedia and any attempt by some to change Wikipedia so it promotes their Pro-gun beliefs should be resisted by those seeking a more objective truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.127.182 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Spitzer

Somebody has sprinkled this article with unecessary refs to Spitzer (for example, in a photo that had nothing to do with him) I think we have enough references to Spitzer's works in the article. He is an advocate of Gun Control and should not be the most referenced person in the article. (He was, but I took care of that) Yes, I have all of his books, and yes I think he is right about many things, but we need to put Wikipedia first, and not ref every single paragraph with something from Spitzer. This article does not exist to boost his Google ratings. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Spitzer's works in the various articles where they are cited in Wikipedia go back years. In the Gun politics in the United States article, they went back at least five years. His works are cited by both gun rights and gun control advocates. I am so glad that someone besides myself has noticed that his works are being purged, and is restoring said citations - as they should be. These deletions are disruptive and dispute the reliability of good sources. If you think there are POV issues with the articles in question, please start discussions on the specific problems and correct them through consensus. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

How about the "Anti-gun nuts"? Media use of "gun nut" is an artifact of urban media uncritically adopting the POV and biased terminology of gun control advocates. Same with "gun lobby" being commonly used in the media but not "ant-gun lobby" as if there were no organizations devoted to advocating abd lobbying for anti-gun laws.

How does removing Spitzer citation and material improve the article

Sue Rangell how does removing this Spitzer citation and material improve this article? Lightbreather (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, this is the last time that I am going to politely ask you to STOP HARASSING ME in this manner. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not a proper response to a civil and reasonable question about content. I'd like to know your reasoning as well - not that I disagree with it, whatever it is - this article should probably be deleted. Hipocrite (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
"In content disputes, a common baiting strategy involves badgering the opposition—while carefully remaining superficially civil—until someone lashes out. They then complain to an administrator. Most discouraging of all, this tactic is nearly risk-free. There rarely are negative consequences for those who use it, in part because a pattern of ongoing provocation can't easily be explained following the usual "diffs please" request." --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to say that others have been badgering you. However, I don't think that's on topic. We were discussion your rationale for removing specific content? Hipocrite (talk) 04:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Explained in the edit summary. Feel free to revert it if you do not agree. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 07:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Shall this article be merged

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Gun politics in the United States. Shall this be done?

  • MERGE - This article has been Start Class since 2005. If it was ever going to improve I think it would have done so by now. The material really belongs in the other article. One cannot talk about gun culture without also talking about gun politics, and vice versa. There is a gun culture section in the other article. If there is any non-duplicate material in this article, it should be merged there. I don't think this article should be deleted, but simply forwarded to Gun politics in the United States. There is no point in having all of these independent gun culture articles. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In support of Gun cultures as uniquely notable WP:N topics

I have created an article called Global gun cultures. I pulled the the dubious Gun cultures outside the U.S. section that was in this article and have moved it there.

My INTENTION is to have an article there that deals PRIMARILY with the non-political aspects of gun cultures. Origins, time periods, are-they-still active, etc. LEAVE THE POLITICS for the "Gun politics in..." articles. I find it maddening on Wikipedia that every (it seems to me) article related to firearms gets overrun by advocates and turned into a soapbox. Leave the arguments/debates for the politics pages and only mention those things briefly in other gun-related articles (with links where appropriate) IMHO. Lightbreather (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You should probably copy that info back here, since it looks as if Global gun cultures will be deleted or merged. It would be a shame to lose that information. This article will probably also be merged, so we need to keep a "chain" to protect the info. Please copy it back. In this case duplicate info is probably a good thing. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FWIW

A note to myself or any other editor who comes along re edits of the last couple of days. These two edits - [5][6] - basically swapped all but the first paragraph of what was in this article's Origins section and the United States section in Global gun cultures. OK by me, but it took me a few compares to figure it out. Lightbreather (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Poor sources and lack of cultural section

This article has poor sources (mainly newspapers) and lacks a proper discussion of the rich debates surrounding gun culture in the US. I've started by adding a reference to Richard Hofstadter, and much more work is needed. --StraboVarenius (talk) 07:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Understatement of Anti-Gun culture

I think, being a member of the Anti-gun culture, we are being severely underrepresented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.166.177 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would you expect to see yourself represented in a "gun culture" article? Where would you be? Under "hunters"? "Self defenders"? "Target shooters"? 99.163.50.12 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize you guys had your own culture. You guys hang out in anti-shooting establishments, go to anti-gun shows and read anti-gun magazines complete with reviews on how evil the newest guns are? Ok - that was pretty snarky. In all seriousness, I wouldn't mind at all seeing this represented. As you can see, I have my doubts about this culture, but if it does exist it should be added and I would enjoy reading reliable sourced information about this. 05:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Anti-gun nuts"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Biased

Are there any examples of unbiased use of this term? All I've seen are examples where the term is used by people in favor of greater controls on firearms, saying things like "The Virgina Tech massacre was a result of America's gun culture", as though supporters of shooting sports or firearms rights support giving guns to the mentally ill. If someone said "Islam is a religion of violence" (accompanied by footage of Iranians mobbing the streets cheering the latest terrorist bombing) they would be labeled a hateful bigot, yet when the term "gun culture" is used to imply that anyone who supports firearms rights an accessory to mass murder, it's politically acceptable. scot 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

An example of a roughly opposite political view is Nanny state--note that it makes it abundantly clear in the article that the term is politically biased. scot 15:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Gun Lobby" Unmentioned in this section is the common practice of gun control advocates and their supporters in the media of referring to a "gun lobby" while completely ignoring the existence of an "anti-gun lobby". Organizations like the Brady Campaign exist soley for the purpose of lobbying Congress and state legislatures for more restrictive gun laws, yet they are seldom, if ever referred to as the "anti-gun lobby" or even the "gun control lobby". This sirt of asymetrical reference is in itself a kind of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

There are several examples of positive uses of this term. These uses predominately tend to be in books, but also in many magazines. Unintended Consequences by John Ross (author) is probably the best positive example. Since the publication of the first edition of this book, there has been considerably more "positive" use of the word in the US, at least, in newspapers and magazines and a fairly large number of novels. Shotgun News, a weekly publication that is available at Wal-Mart, among many other places, also has many articles in which "gun culture" is used in a positive sense in the Knox editorials and in the RWVA stuff by "Fred", especially. In the UK and in Australia, though, the media is infamously biased, using this term mostly in a biased, negative, sense, only, with but few uses in a positive sense or unbiased sense. Ditto for John Howard, and many other non-US politicians. US politicians, though, at least when they are running for office, seem to use the term in a non-biased sense, except for the relatively few far left-wing candidates. Admittedly, left-wing publications in the US tend to use the term with malice and bias. Personally, I don't see the term as uniformly biased, although it is often used this way. It is somewhat similar to the Assault Weapons Ban intentionally confusing semi-automatic and full-auto actions, though focusing on "evil" pictures of weapons that are actually full-auto. The Assault Weapons Ban banned no full-auto weapons; they were already controlled by the NFA from the 1930's. Ask a citizen on the street, though, and you will rarely get an accurate assessment of just what the Assault Weapons Ban actually banned; most think they banned machine-guns. (They didn't, of course.) "Gun Culture" is much the same; there are those who try to paint it as uniformly negative, and the "man on the street" likely identifies "gun culture" with negative thoughts, or, in extreme cases, with even banjo music (as in, "Paddle faster, I hear banjo music", which has even been printed on t-shirts, in reference to Deliverance along with other generally false stereotypes of southerners, especially. Personally, I think we ought to describe "gun culture" in a non-biased sense, as it is used both with positive and with negative meanings, depending on where one looks. There is precedent for this. Once, "ham" radio operators were considered to be uniformly poor operators, "ham" meaning poor, as in ham-fisted when sending Morse Code; of course, this changed over time, and today "ham" radio is not considered pejorative. There just needs to be enough positive support to make "gun culture" lose its pejorative sense, too. It is already used both positively and negatively, depending on where one looks. 06:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)



Is it really fair to use as your primary source an individual who identifies with the "anti-gun" crowd, i.e. Brady Campaign? Why wouldn't you ALSO engage a representative such as John Lott, author of many "pro-gun" books and as much a scholar on the subject as Robert Spitzer? You show your liberal hand on each and every topic which might have even a small political angle to it...or do you even care? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.169.14 (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gun culture in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Gun nut

In the Terms applied to opponents section, it says the term gun nut is used by "anti-gun advocates". Yes, that group does use the term, but so do I, and many others. I am Australian. I am not anti-gun. I strongly support our current laws which allow guns to be used for many reasons, such as hunting and competition. I regard guns as essential, just not for all the same reasons as believed in by those referred to as (American) gun nuts .

We need to highlight that not everyone who disagrees with the views of the most extreme gun owners is anti-gun. This is not a binary argument. HiLo48 (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Gun Nut?

Why is there a section called "Gun Nut" in this article? I don't see how this term relates to gun culture. 71.139.0.198 16:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a term widely used to describe people involved in the Gun Culture, just as it says in that section's first sentence. --BillyTFried 18:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)



What about Anti-gun Nuts or Gun-Control Nuts? Once again, the bias is showing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.172.169.14 (talk) 20:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Another term often encountered is "the gun lobby", yet hardly ever is reference made to an "anti-gun lobby". Certainly, there exist organizations which exist soley to lobby for more restrictive gun laws, yet the media tends to avoid referring to them as the "anti-gun lobby" or even the "gun control lobby". For whatever reason, the media tends to accept the terminology and usage of gun control advocates rather uncritically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps because, globally, the "normal" situation is not to have citizens armed to the teeth. One doesn't need special terms to describe what is normal. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Controversy over lead sentence?

Nosebagbear seems to want to start an edit war over changes I made to the lead sentence. No explanation given as to the concern.

The original lead sentence was

The term gun culture in the United States encompasses the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs about firearms and their usage by civilians.

This, in general, does does not really comply well with MOS. First, normally the entire title of the article should be in the lead sentence, bolded, unless their is an exceptional reason that would not be appropriate. Second, the article is about American gun culture, not just the "term" gun culture. When you introduce an article as being about a term you are normally violating WP:NAD (though there can be certain exceptions, this not being one of them).

Anyway, I offered the following:

The gun culture in the United States is a pervasive part of American society, reflecting highly ingrained behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs about firearms and their usage by civilians.

Not sure what the big concern is. Half the text is exactly the same as the original. If somebody wants to offer a different way to fix the problem, please feel free.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Coryphantha seems to want to war as well. I had made a separate, referenced edit and that was reverted too with no explanation beyond a cryptic "NPOV".
I am guessing their is some backstory here that I am not familiar with. Both editors have resorted to Wikibullying on the user talk pages.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
141.131.2.3: Please find my reply here. Coryphantha Talk 21:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

gun culture and strong gun culture

The full concept of gun culture appears rather fuzzy, by not being properly defined: what do we mean by gun culture and strong gun culture?

Might be it deals with the number of traded guns? The number of trainings with guns? The visibility of guns? The ease to access to guns? The number of times a gun provides a practical solution? An improved safety and a reduced number of fatalities involving guns?

If so improve the article based on reliable source!

Culture is defined as an an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities and habits of the individuals in these groups. Humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, which is shown by the diversity of cultures across societies. A cultural norm codifies acceptable conduct in society; it serves as a guideline for behavior, dress, language, and demeanor in a situation, which serves as a template for expectations in a social group.

Anyway, strong culture appears to be meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.136.214.49 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_culture_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1164945640"